Get feminist complaint canals off our urinals!
By Bernard Chapin
web posted December 1, 2003
The attempt on the part of the radical feminist and gay coalition
to create unisex bathrooms at the University of Chicago
immediately brought to mind my only experience with non-
handicapped, desegregated restrooms back in the summer of
2001.
At the time I encountered them, I was on a date with a girl at a
Chicago street fair called "Halsted Market Days." The fair is
demographically unique as it's held in the homosexual
neighborhood of "Boystown", and half its attendees, at least, are
gay. Despite the advertising, the neighborhood is quite mixed and
features more than a few non-pastel, "straights" within its
confines.
My date later confided to me that she selected the setting on
purpose to see if I was a tolerant guy. Astonishingly, I passed
with diversity flag colors as the sight of homosexuals frolicking in
the road is about as unexpected to me as a runny nose in pollen
season.
At any rate, a couple of hours in, she directed me to the inside of
a restaurant/bar called "Roscoe's" so she could use the
bathroom. When she returned we had another round and I used
the facilities. I did not think anything strange about the room as it
had a few stalls, a sink, a mirror, and several urinals. I stood by
the mirror doing what one does after swallowing four Miller's,
when suddenly I heard three girls talking behind me as they
waited for a stall. I said, "Men's room" aloud hoping they'd
realize their mistake. They replied that the bathroom was for
everybody. After remembering our neighborhood location, I
understood, as we were tourists in a foreign land.
That foreign land may now be here though. It seems that activists
at the University of Chicago are lobbying for the creation of
multi-sexual bathrooms to combat discrimination against
transsexuals and trans-gendered individuals. The rational is as
follows:
"'If a woman in a women's-only restroom is assumed to be a
man, there may be real threats to her comfort and even safety,'
warns the Coalition for a Queer Safe Campus 'Students have
faced gay-baiting comments in our university's sex-segregated
bathrooms.'"
How does one react to this? First of all, I do not believe the
charge. Usually when people have to relieve themselves, that
alone is the object of their concentration. Fittingly, no examples
are given by the student. I do not presume the mass of
heterosexuals to be anti-gay. In fact, from what I have seen,
heterosexuals today are more tolerant of homosexuality than they
are of their own heterosexuality (which is another column all
together).
Second, I'm willing to grant that somebody, in some bathroom,
in some truck stop somewhere once made a sarcastic or irritable
comment to a human of ambiguous sexuality, but that in no way
justifies desegregating bathrooms for men and women. The
"oppressed" in this scenario need thicker skins as opposed to
new sanctuaries.
Insisting that the majority of Americans indulge over-sensitivity
cannot be found in the Bill of Rights.
Yet, the university sees it differently and has to chosen to confuse
student whines with social justice. One of the deans even stated
that the activists complaint has done a great job in raising
"community awareness."
While I disagree with the dean about the beneficent nature of the
coalition, I am pleased that they brought this scandal into the
open. This enables a disinterested public to note the devotion in
which "illiberal" liberals attempt to codify private behaviors.
If the reader has no previous knowledge of radical politics, then
the request made of the university appears odd but not malicious.
Yet, as one who's been aware of the feminist agenda for many
years, the demand for unisex bathrooms is in keeping with their
enduring attack on our culture.
The Feminist Majority, one of the organizations involved in the
discussion at the University of Chicago, considers the creation of
desegregated restrooms to be amongst one of their great
achievements. On their site they refer to a government branch
that heeded their advice:
"The Coast Guard quietly did away with its regulations requiring
separate bathrooms for men and women aboard ships. A
spokesman for the Coast Guard confirmed that separate heads
no longer are required as long as privacy is maintained."
A UC professor affirms that desegregated toilets are a part of
their ideology: "‘Some feminists might say that any sex
segregation is problematic,' said Mary Anne Case, a professor
of law at the University of Chicago who has studied the early
roots of feminism and the inequality in sex segregated
bathrooms."
Consider how bizarre it sounds to someone off the street that
"Inequality in sex segregated bathrooms" is an area for academic
study within our universities. Most normal people do not view
this as being a topic worthy of scholarship. However, this does
not stop the academy from spending millions of dollars each year
to investigate twaddle and pronounce it platinum.
What the casual observer may not fathom about these radical
feminists is that the bathroom is one of their favorite places in
which to deconstruct. Indeed, they waged a War On Urinals in
the past and will continue to do so in the future. To most of us,
the urinal is a practical item, but, to the activists, it was forged
with porcelain teeth stolen from the goddess herself.
In 2000, Swedish feminists wished to micromanage the way in
which men biologically function within their Stockholm university
so they tried to force everyone to take a seat. It seems that our
standing is a "nasty macho gesture" that demeans women. If we
extend their particular line of fallacious reasoning, we will soon
discover, provided the peyote's been swallowed correctly, that
using the words "is" and "was" are misogynistic as well, and
probably one day will be labeled criminal sexual misconduct.
What next? The size of a man's shoes? I can only imagine the
shrieks that will come from a campus brimming with
androgynous Pats once they find out that men have bigger shoes
than they do. "The injustice!" They may well, with their
sophisticated minds, then consider male foot binding as a
plausible solution.
Next we have my favorite quotation: "…along with creating more
bathroom space for women -- a typical problem in public
facilities -- the gender-neutral bathroom would also give men and
women less reasons to separate in social functions."
Well, this is total hogwash. While the new water closets will give
men and women less of a chance to separate during organic
functions, I do not see how it would directly translate to social
situations.
What it does translates into is the undeniable conclusion that
radical feminists are not remotely concerned about the welfare of
women in general. The real people who'd benefit from this plan
are not transsexual or trans-gendered but rapists. Without
question, any rapist who heard about this new PC edict had to
be quite enthused. A stall would be the ideal place for them to
lurk and await their prey, and no one would think anything of
their going into the duck blind as they swung open its door. Even
though these feminists may not be consciously aware of this
potential consequence arising, it is yet another instance proving
that they never reflect on what the unintended consequences of
their actions are.
More likely though, as rape is very rare, the likely outcome is
that women would not use these bathrooms; hence, the activists
would inconvenience the souls whose cause they usually pretend
to champion. The reason women wouldn't use unisex bathrooms
is because men would attempt to expand upon the social and
organic functions currently practiced within them.
Perhaps the activists have some knowledge of this and it pleases
them. Then the dream of heterosexuals openly embracing the gay
lifestyle could be realized. Yes, within time, it could degenerate
into a heterosexual cruising zone–which would be fruitless as it'd
only be a bunch of guys hanging out in empty bathrooms on
Friday nights after women vacated that particular "playing field."
No one should have any illusions about where all of this will end.
It will not end by itself. The activists will take and take as long as
we appease them. No convention or law will remain unturned in
their pursuit to rearrange our culture and daily relations. If the full
range of their totalitarian desires becomes better known, then
these organizations will become widely associated with petty
obsessions and pink cakes of disinfectant rather than "human
rights." It's our responsibility to our country to make their
opinions known, and to fight them vigorously–lobbyist by
lobbyist and urinal by urinal.
Bernard Chapin is a writer living in Chicago. He can be reached
at bchapafl@hotmail.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com